Sheriff Dismissed for Accepting Unofficial Payments From Litigants

The Supreme Court has ruled that a sheriff who directly receives payments from litigants during the performance of official duties—even if claimed as a voluntary gift—commits serious dishonesty warranting dismissal from service. The case of Litonjua v. Marcelino (A.M. No. P-18-3865, October 9, 2018) reinforces the strict prohibition against court personnel accepting any fee or remuneration beyond what they are lawfully entitled to receive.

The Facts of the Case

Complainant Antonio K. Litonjua, president of Fruehauf Electronics Phil. Corp., alleged that respondent Jerry R. Marcelino, Sheriff III of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City, charged the company P100,000 in sheriff's fees during the execution of an ejectment judgment in its favor.

The payments were made in two installments of P50,000 each—one on May 13, 2005, and another on July 14, 2005—both evidenced by vouchers bearing Marcelino's signature. When the Court of Appeals later nullified the trial court's decision, Fruehauf demanded a refund or official receipts for the amounts paid. The Clerk of Court confirmed that no such amounts had ever been remitted to the court.

Marcelino denied receiving the first payment but admitted receiving the second P50,000, claiming it was a voluntary "token of appreciation" given by Fruehauf's counsel. The Court found this defense unavailing.

The Issue

Whether a sheriff who directly receives payments from litigants during the execution of writs, without following the prescribed procedure, may be held administratively liable for dishonesty and dereliction of duty.

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court found Marcelino guilty of serious dishonesty and dereliction of duty and ordered his dismissal from service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to reemployment in any government branch or instrumentality.

Sheriffs Cannot Accept Voluntary Payments

The Court reiterated the settled rule that sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of performing their duties. Even assuming such payments were given in good faith, this alone would not dispel suspicion that they were made for less than noble purposes.

The Proper Procedure Under Rule 141

Under Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, sheriff's expenses must follow a clear-cut procedure:

1. The sheriff estimates the expenses to be incurred
2. The estimate must be approved by the court
3. The interested party deposits the amount with the Clerk of Court and ex officio sheriff
4. The Clerk disburses the amount to the executing sheriff, subject to liquidation
5. Any unspent amount is refunded to the party who made the deposit

The Court emphasized that "[t]he rules on sheriff's expenses are clear-cut and do not provide procedural shortcuts." Any amount received in violation of Section 10, Rule 141 constitutes unauthorized fees.

Prior Infractions Considered

The Court noted this was not Marcelino's first offense. In Paredes v. Marcelino (A.M. No. P-00-1370, September 18, 2003), he was found guilty of abuse of authority and fined P1,000 with a stern warning. In another case (A.M. No. P-15-3323), he was found guilty of less serious dishonesty and simple neglect of duty for failing to deposit garnished money, resulting in a six-month suspension.

Practical Takeaways

• Sheriffs and court personnel must never accept payments directly from litigants. All fees and expenses must be deposited with the Clerk of Court following the procedure under Rule 141.
• A claim of "voluntary gift" or "token of appreciation" is not a defense. The Court views such payments as inherently suspect and inimical to the integrity of the service.
• Dishonesty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal on the first offense. Court personnel who misappropriate funds or fail to remit amounts received in their official capacity face the ultimate administrative penalty.
• Repeated infractions aggravate liability. Prior administrative sanctions, even for different offenses, demonstrate a pattern of misconduct that justifies the severest penalty.
• Sheriffs are "ranking officers of the court" whose conduct must maintain the prestige and integrity of the judiciary. Their close contact with litigants demands the highest standards of honesty and propriety.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.